California Supremes Won't Take Up Decision Keeping State Bar Exam Data Confidential
The ruling is a setback for the plaintiff, UCLA professor Richard Sander, who for about a decade has litigated with the bar for what he says would be anonymized data used for research.
November 16, 2018 at 06:18 PM
3 minute read
The California Supreme Court this week declined to take up a decision which found that the State Bar didn't have to hand over certain demographic information about bar exam takers.
The court on Wednesday denied a petition to review an August decision from the First District Court of Appeal, which found that California's public records law does not obligate a public agency such as the Bar to manipulate data in existing documents to comply with document requests. San Francisco Superior Court Judge Mary Wiss had ruled in November 2016 that the Bar didn't have to disclose data about bar exam applicants because privacy interests “clearly” outweighed the public's interest in seeing demographic information and scores.
Leah Wilson, executive director of the State Bar of California, said in an email statement that the organization was “very pleased” with the decision.
“The State Bar has a duty to protect the privacy and anonymity of Bar applicants and their personal information, including their race, ethnicity, law school, grade point average, LSAT scores and bar exam scores,” Wilson said.
The ruling is a setback for the plaintiff, UCLA professor Richard Sander. For about a decade, Sander and nonprofit First Amendment Coalition have litigated with the bar for what they say would be anonymized data used for research. The California Supreme Court previously ruled in 2013 that the public has a common-law right to the data, as long as it could be provided without violating bar candidates' privacy rights and the bar could show no outsized “countervailing interest.”
Sander, who studies racial preference in admissions processes, has argued that affirmative action hurts those it intends to benefit by placing students in positions for which they are underqualified. He filed a lawsuit in state court Thursday seeking information on the University of California system's consideration of race within the admissions process.
Sander referred a request for comment to his lawyer, Jean-Paul Jassy of Jassy Vick Carolan. Jassy said he was disappointed with the decision, but that it was very narrow in scope. “The Supreme Court supervises the State Bar, and I believe Sander and others who are concerned about this issue will try to persuade the Supreme Court, in its supervisory role, to direct the State Bar to conduct the studies that Sander and FAC think are so important,” said Jassy in an email Friday.
David Snyder, the executive director of the FAC, on Friday called the State Bar “one of the most powerful and secretive agencies in the state” and said that it's “in need of greater transparency.”
“Without these records, the people of California are deprived of a meaningful way to independently assess whether the State Bar is meeting its stated objectives,” Snyder said. “While this particular effort to create greater transparency at the State Bar has now ended, we are confident that ultimately the facts will come out.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllIn Lawsuit, Ex-Google Employee Says Company’s Layoffs Targeted Parents and Others on Leave
6 minute readMorrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
Trending Stories
- 1The Tech Built by Law Firms in 2024
- 2Distressed M&A: Mass Torts, Bankruptcy and Furthering the Search for Consensus: Another Purdue Decision
- 3For Safer Traffic Stops, Replace Paper Documents With ‘Contactless’ Tech
- 4As Second Trump Administration Approaches, Businesses Brace for Sweeping Changes to Immigration Policy
- 5General Warrants and ESI
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250